User talk:Andrewa/Verifiable facts about non notable topics

Why this page

Self explanatory I think, see User:Andrewa/Verifiable facts about non notable topics#Background. Andrewa (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heads ups

I have posted two heads-ups [1] [2] at what seemed the most relevant talk pages. Andrewa (talk) 06:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite the right tree

What the essay should make clear both to new users and old users alike is that when something is reverted as "not notable" from a content perspective, that's the wrong statement to make. It is typically a standin for the more-correct judgement whether appropriate weight is established by addition of some content.

Regarding minors of notable people specifically, there is an essay at WP:MINORS which may/may not be interesting. --Izno (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good points. Sorry I was a bit slow to respond to them. But you seem agreed with the basic assertion... that removing such material on the grounds that it is not notable or non notable is not helpful. Andrewa (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do indeed think that removal of material from an article on the grounds of "not notable" is not the correct reason to say "I am removing material". --Izno (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is my central point. But not everyone agrees. They've also asked not to discuss it further, and have challenged me to ANI them if I find fault. This would be overkill IMO. Other suggestions? Andrewa (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MINORS seems to be on a different issue entirely, and I disagree with the nutshell. BLP should cover this adequately, and IMO it does. This just muddies the waters, and the talk page even borders on violating wp:IANAL. But I'm not going to AfD it or even comment on its talk page... it's just an essay, if those who think it helps come up with something useful to others who think it helps, good enough. Andrewa (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* To revert with comment "not notable" is perhaps not ideal phrasing, but the sense of 'trivia' or 'insufficient WEIGHT' is clear enough and I note it did not say "NOTABLE" and uncapitalised would not normally be taken as the WP policy. Yes a newbie might be confused re WP:NOTABLE, but then again a newbie might be confused by WEIGHT over 'what do they mean by WEIGHT and did they have to shout it?' Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate weight

Good point by Izno above, and one already raised in connection with the case that started all this... but one not mentioned at all by the editor who reverted the material in question. Yes, exactly.

But if the material is unsourced but verifiable, isn't the correct course to add material to correct the undue weight? Removing it strikes me as just plain lazy. I think I might write another essay with the title laziness is disruptive or similar. Andrewa (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced editor time is valuable--many of us with hundreds or thousands or tens of/hundreds of thousands of pages we're watching for decreasing quality, vandalism, and many things besides. Who is lazy in the situation where content is added without a reliable source? WP:BURDEN says it is the reverted person's job (in the colloquial sense, not the literal) to find and provide a reliable source. (I use the words reliable prior for the reason that it is not just the reverted person's job to find any source, but specifically one that meets our burden for inclusion.) Sometimes we know prior to attempted inclusion of some material that the material wouldn't have the correct weight because we've done the work of looking. Other times there are other policies in play. And so on... --Izno (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor's time is valuable. Have a look at the case in question if you like, and yes, you're right on the money, it is also a question of undue weight and I've raised it there. But the editor who removed the material didn't mention it either, just notability. The newbie who added it couldn't be expected to know that they were doing anything wrong; They knew the information was accurate and felt it was encyclopedic and were probably right on both counts. Nothing lazy there.

The other issues are promotion and COI, and the editor who removed the material later said they took these both into account (rightly) but didn't mention either. Lazy again, and a colossal waste of the newbie's time.

Yes, who is lazy? But let's not call the person lazy. It's the action which is lazy. Just as we all sometimes do stupid things, hard-working people can do lazy things. But neither is good. Andrewa (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now see User:Andrewa/lazy. Andrewa (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added something on what I feel are the two important point made above. Andrewa (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When are sources required

I'm coming to the conclusion that we're not entirely consistent on this! At the very least it has been a learning curve for me. Andrewa (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While many would prefer always, WP:V has a different answer in WP:CHALLENGE (same pointer as BURDEN but I like the slightly different emphasis). If the material has been or would likely be challenged, it requires an inline source. (That means all biographical facts per WP:BLP, on an aside.) --Izno (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. It also means anything that has been challenged. See here.

And that is a blank cheque, and incompatible with the spirit of WP:V and elsewhere. Challenge anything you like, and ipso facto it then requires an inline citation. Ridiculous. Andrewa (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]